zeldafandomcom-20200223-history
Forum:Confirmation of policy regarding Hyrule Historia
Can I get a confirmation of what our policy regarding Hyrule Historia is, specifically regarding what to do when a theory section on a page contains info that is confirmed by the book? EDIT: Since apparently there isn't one currently, I suppose we're discussing what to do in the above situation. For example, the page on Loftwings contains a theory section postulating that the bird on the Royal Family's crest is based on the Loftwing, which Historia states as a fact. The page on the Hero's Shade contains no theory section and states the Historia information in the main part of the article, but I know I've read on another talk page here (can't remember which page) that eliminating theory sections just based off what Historia says is not acceptable. Thanks! -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 18:47, April 18, 2012 (UTC) :I haven't really gotten involved with this whole debacle because I know a lot of people take issue with some of the questionable content in the book. But to tell you the truth, I don't really know why we aren't considering information in the book as factual. It says right on the cover that it is produced by Eiji Aonuma. And there are statements inside the book from both Aonuma and Miyamoto. Most other times the developers say things that aren't directly from in-game (like the Korok-Kokiri/Rito-Zora evolutions for example) we consider them canon. I don't know why such a big release like this isn't being treated the same way. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 23:14, April 18, 2012 (UTC) ::Well, I think the problem is that some people simply don't accept the Hyrule Historia as a completely canonical source on the grounds that a couple of things are questionable based on stuff found in-game (mostly the timeline, but Kaepora Gaebora can't be a reincarnation of Rauru, given the traditional definition of "reincarnation", if Rauru is still alive, for another example). And of course, the games themselves are, as far as I am aware, largely accepted as the highest form of canon, even above developer comments. Of course we must note what the developers say, but we should also list the contradictions, if there are any. I guess the issue is that the Korok/Rito thing was a one-off statement that they made once; it was just some random thing they said once and we couldn't find any holes in it, so we accepted it as the truth. On the other hand, people find the timeline and a few other theories implausible or outrageous, so the book as a whole suffers in credibility in their eyes, even if some confirmations make sense. I don't really know what do about this in terms of the book's canonicity. I do think that we should continue in what we've been doing by saying "According to the Hyrule Historia, ...", since this makes the statement seem official if somebody chooses to accept the Hyrule Historia, but also doesn't assume that the Historia is always right. As for theory sections, it's kind of hard to say. I do think that it's very awkward and unprofessional to say in the main body of the article that it's been confirmed, only to list a theory later on which does not take this confirmation into account. I feel that we should either a) remove all the theory sections and put the confirmation, support for the idea, and possible problems with it in the main body of the article or b) take the confirmation out of the main body of the article and merge it with the theory section, so we can present the theory as a theory but also say that the Hyrule Historia claims it's true. Xykeb Yvolix '' '' 23:54, April 18, 2012 (UTC) :::Figured I should move this to the Watercooler since, if we're going to be discussing what to do in situations like this (I was under the impression that this may already have been discussed somewhere, and I could just get a simple answer), that's a more appropriate place. And I agree with Xykeb's a); after all, it's silly to call it a theory if one of the developers has confirmed it, and equally silly to decry all the information in Historia just because you don't like some of it (though maybe I don't have such a big problem with its timeline as most of the people here do since it jives pretty well with what my personal one was, albeit without the third split, but that's another discussion). -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 00:24, April 19, 2012 (UTC)